All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3, the lower court, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff’s certificate of athletic performance issued to the Plaintiffs, notwithstanding the instant work guidelines, cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act, false statement of results, or false document submission, which constitutes a ground for revocation of admission permission, on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ certificate of athletic performance

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of the instant work guidelines, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it was difficult to view that the Defendant intended to accept the criteria for issuance of G’s certificate (in the case of a number of offenses, 1) as an incorporated association, as it did not present any additional requirements as to the requirements for support for the participation of the participants in the king, on the ground that the Defendant did not explicitly and explicitly demand certain performance, such as “at the king,” and that it was difficult to view that the Defendant intended to accept the criteria for issuance of G’s certificate (in the case of a number of offenses, 1)

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the qualifications for support and the meaning of the certificate of performance in admission, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that even if the act of the Plaintiffs’ submission of the instant match performance certificate constitutes grounds for revocation of admission, the revocation of the Plaintiffs’ admission was significantly deviates from the scope of discretion or abused discretionary power.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record and relevant legal principles, the lower court’s judgment is so alleged in the grounds of appeal.